Vladilyich Wrote: Ukraine has always been a part of Russia. The word "Ukraine" is actually the Slavic word for "Border". It has been a border state of Russia since the time of the Tsars. Well over 50% of those that live in Ukraine are ethnic Russians. I can't blame the Russian administration for wanting to protect them from the terrorists. - The Boneless Wonder Works Magic in Ukraine

Dear Tavarish Vlad,

Wrong.

The CIA Fact Book and a census by the Ukrainian government itself in 2010 peg the number of Russians in Ukraine at about 17.3 percent. In the census of 2001, almost 70 percent of people claimed Ukrainian as their primary language, while less than 30 percent claimed Russian. Later I’ll explain why that’s important.

But so what? Let’s say the number of Russian speakers is higher than that.

Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland had large number of ethnic Germans, but that didn’t give Hitler the right to invade any of those countries. In fact, historians now agree that the “ethnic problem” was mostly a pretext that Hitler used to cobble together a greater German Reich.

It’s interesting that Germany used the same pretext that you are using: ethnicity.

"The German Reich is no longer willing to tolerate the suppression of ten million Germans across its borders,” proclaimed Hitler to the Reichstag in a three hour speech just prior to annexing Austria.

The “suppression” was largely a matter of myth aimed at Austria and Czechoslovakia.

By this reasoning, Mexico can invade the United States to protect ethnic Mexicans. Or Ireland can invade the United States whenever they want, or the United States can invade Canada whenever we want—actually, we can—just because of similar ethnicities.

As for Ukraine always being a part of Russia, that’s simply not true.

Kiev was a great city-state, perhaps the greatest of its time, in the 11th Century. Since then it has been a part of Lithuania, Poland, and Russia with some periods of autonomy.

Poland gave Kiev to Russia in return for support in their war against the Turks in the late 17th Century and Ukraine gradually lost its independence, first under Peter the Great and then finally under Catherine the Great.

After World War I, Ukraine enjoyed short period of autonomy, but was once again absorbed into Russia with the final victory of the Bolsheviks. But there was a lot of fighting amongst Red and White Russians and Poles.

From that period of time until proclaiming an independent Ukrainian Republic in 1991, Ukraine was put through a period of intense Russification under the Soviet system, whereby the Ukrainian language was abolished along with Ukrainian culture. Despite these massive crimes committed in the Ukraine by Russia—actually because of-- Ukraine still expresses its desire to be a separate and wholly autonomous country, without the interference of Russia. I know this because despite Russification, 70 percent of people self-identify the Ukrainian language and only 17.3 percent claim Russian ethnicity.

If Ukraine was “always” Russian, as you claim, the numbers of Russians would be higher.

Let’s face it, the only gift that Russia gave the Ukraine was the high male rate of alcoholism that shaves over ten years of life off their life expectancy for men. That's what Russia's trying to preserve in Ukraine.

tg7211 Wrote: and I suppose you bunch of nimrods want to go to war with russia over some dogs_t country on their border?? oh yea its that communist expansion thing the domino theory ya I know lets go back and redo vietnam or maybe korea but they might be to tough guess we could always pull a bush and invade iraq again why don't all you blood thirsty gun fuchers head over there and offer your services. - The Boneless Wonder Works Magic in Ukraine

Dear Comrade TG,

No one wants to go to war.

Least of all soldiers. But guess what? We have an all-volunteer military now.

No one is prosecuted for refusing to be deployed into a war zone.

They are kicked out of the military, but they ought to be. They knew they might have to go to war when they signed up

Anyone who goes to war in these days goes as a volunteer.

And guess what else?

Korea was the right war. Just ask the South Koreans.

The tragedy of both Korea and Vietnam wasn’t that we made an effort. No, the tragedy of Korea and Vietnam is that we treated our soldiers so shabbily when they returned.

You know, the people you call “you blood thirsty gun fuchers”?

A lot of them read articles right here. Some of them even write articles here at Townhall as well.

At least we fight for something. What about you?

Go join the Peace Corp and live in squalid equatorial Africa, or better yet, give all of your paycheck to the poor and live in cardboard on the street.

DoctorRoy Wrote: I'm almost afraid to ask but how would a President Ransom respond to this latest provocation from Putey Pute? I recall one former President who looked into his eyes and proclaimed we could trust him because he saw his soul. I hope you would have more sense than that. - The Boneless Wonder Works Magic in Ukraine

Dear Comrade Roy,

Bush could afford to say such things because he spoke from a position of power. He pulled us out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and there was nothing Russia could say or do about it that amounted to anything. He pulled us into Iraq and there was nothing Russia could say or do about it.

The Ukrainian situation can 100 percent be laid to the fact that Obama’s a wussified—Russified?-- weakling.

Remember when Hillary brought the Russians the “reset” button.

Well golly, we sure did reset Russian-American relations.

A president Ransom would have built the missile shield in Ukraine and given them full membership in NATO. And if allowed I would have rotated out all the U.S. bases from Germany into Poland and Ukraine.

I also would have kept a sizable contingent in Iraq on the Iranian border and a much smaller garrison in Afghanistan.

Do you think Tehran and Moscow would behave better or worse with 50,000 U.S. troops on their border and the capacity to surge another 150,000 more?

MikeinBelize Wrote: I was enjoying poster @george washington's satirical musings re polar bears when, for the umpteenth time the page "reloaded" and my place was lost. Why does TH (and only TH) do this? I fully expect this post to disappear, as have many others for no apparent reason, but that can wait for another day.. Just stop the damn reloading will you? -- The Outrageous Deviation on the Polar Bear Symbol Thing

The actual question should be: What does the increase in temperature actually mean to how man lives and works in the world?

When I write about global warming, so-called, I typically take issue with the models that invariably have been: 1) wrong and 2) have called on the United States to take draconian measures when we don’t even know if the measures will affect the earth’s temperature.

I have a standing offer that I will shave my head bald and eat a can of dog food publically if someone can show me scientifically how the “Cap and Trade” legislation will lower the earth’s temperature by even a half of a degree centigrade.

In the last 50 years, the earth has warmed at less than one degree centigrade. And there has been a pause in warming in the last 17 years. This is undisputed.

Actually, the real danger is cooler temperatures, not warmer ones.

I’m not hopeful that man really can effect the type of change on climate that liberals believe.

Despite what Hairy Reid says, Obamacare is costing plenty of people not just something, but a lot.

jdmeth123 Wrote: What if corporate tax rates were a little higher? If these companies paid their employees more or charged less for their products they wouldn't have these huge cash reserves. While there is increased competition for jobs driving wages down big business face little sales competition and charge ever higher prices. --The Best of the So Called Recovery is Behind Us

What if corporate tax rates were raised a bit and they funneled that money to my account?

That would be good for ME, therefore if must be good.

SMIA Wrote: The author needs to get clear on the distinction between "stock" and "flow." Cash balances are "stock." Investment is "flow." Once the Fed and the Treasury create "cash," someone has to be holding it at all times. So, while it is true that real investment is down, corporate cash balances tell us nothing. --The Best of the So Called Recovery is Behind Us

Dear Comrade Simba,

Stick to being a lion. Bulls and Bears are beyond you.

I’m not clear what you are talking about, but then neither are you.

Investment is up, not down.

What’s down is the velocity of money. Money is buying fewer goods and services while chasing investment markets up.

That’s why we have no jobs, the economy is stagnant and dog and cats are living together, with mass hysteria.

gungy Wrote: John, are ratings even an issue anymore with these networks or circulation with these newspapers and mags? It's the agenda that counts, proselytizing for the Left, Obama and Democrats. Only difference between Nixon and Obama is the latter is a Democrat and has the media on his side. The death of freedom of the press seems to be a suicide. We who are about to die salute you. Even on FOX, Geraldo assures us that Obama is His Majesty and no other American citizen is his equal. George Washington would vomit. --The FCC Can Have My Pen and My Microphone When They Pry Them From My Cold, Dead Hands

Dear Gungy,

I think they are committing assisted suicide. They might in fact be the first victims of Obama’s death panels:

No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.